Disregard all that manifest horror behind the curtain

This week the “better” democracies are wagging fingers at worse ones, like 17th-century popes reprimanding missionaries in the distant jungle. They tut-tut over a stuffed ballot box in Nairobi, a banned radio station in Islamabad or a murdered journalist in Moscow. They condemn a riot here, a bombed polling booth there and an imprisoned politician somewhere else. How dare these “developing” peoples corrupt the sacred rites of mother church?

They what? They ‘tut-tut’?? Over a ‘stuffed ballot box in Nairobi’ – meaning a possibly stolen election followed by an outburst of ethnic cleansing which perhaps heralds more? Over ‘a banned radio station in Islamabad’ – meaning eight years of military dictatorship, a state of emergency declared in order to fire all the Supreme Court justices and replace them with more compliant ones, followed by a tiny matter of the murder of the likely winner of the upcoming election? Over ‘a murdered journalist in Moscow’ – meaning Anna Politkovskaya, who was murdered perhaps by the government, for exposing human rights abuses in Chechnya? These things strike Simon Jenkins as trivial and apparently slightly laughable? Not the kind of thing anyone should ‘tut-tut’ over? Well what would be the right kind of thing then?

If I had been Musharraf in receipt of such patronising remarks, I would have drawn deep from the well of irony. I would have referred Britain’s prime minister to his poor poll rating and said Islamabad was “dismayed” he had funked a democratic mandate last October. I would have expressed Pakistan’s disappointment at Brown’s record on habeas corpus, ID cards and the exploitation of Pakistani doctors by the NHS.

No doubt you would, but what is your point? That Gordon Brown and Pervez Musharraf are much of a muchness and that there is really nothing to choose between them? That Gordon Brown is the same kind of thing as a military dictator?

For all the manifest horror of the past week in Pakistan and Kenya it is presumptuous for the west to demand that the world take the same route to self-government that it spent bloodthirsty centuries pursuing. We may regard liberal democracy as the one true religion, but it is doubtful if many Russians or Chinese do likewise at present. Like many places on earth, they give a higher rating to security and prosperity.

Well if that’s the case, then they could vote for that, if they got the chance, couldn’t they. But if they don’t get the chance, then you don’t know what they give a higher rating, do you. What makes you so sure it’s not ‘presumptuous’ for you to decide what they give a higher rating when there is no mechanism for them to declare that? Presumptuous yourself.

I think Jenkins’ point was less that what happens in other countries is terrible, and more that UK and other Western politicians’ response is always to throw a sanctimonious hissy-fit, and then go back to business as usual… The rarity of their putting their money where their mouths are is quite notable.

“[I don’t mean to suggest that Orwell is in the same bracket ideologically as Jenkins. Jenkins is a Tory isolationist and a fool.]”

…suggests that we agree on quite a bit. My concern was more to comment on a possible misunderstanding regarding the comparison of the _writers_ rather than the _essays_.

And this…

“What Orwell wrote after August 1939 is, in part, a reflection on, and harsh repudiation of, his own former views.”

…is one of the capacities (self-criticism) which made him a great writer.

One can only wonder what Orwell would have responded if there had been an “Edge Question” in 1939.

On the other hand: while there might have been some ‘sloganeering’ in Orwell’s writing on imperialism in that period, I think we could at least agree that it was a _serious_ issue that indeed _did_ raise questions about British (or French or Belgian) commitment to democracy. (Or at least real shortcomings in their understanding of same.)

Jenkins raises essentially phony issues to draw a ridiculous comparison with dictatorships. One is Brown’s failure to call a new election. However, right or wrong, smart or dumb, Brown’s decision can hardly be called ‘anti-democratic’, as the British system relies not on a personal mandate for the PM but on one for a particular party.

Or he drums away at the infamous ‘ID card’ without any apparent knowledge that many European countries have ID cards without any apparent threat to their democratic systems.

In _his_ essay, Orwell at least raised serious questions about the (un-democratic) policies undertaken by democratic states. (And in doing so, he neither draws a direct comparison with fascist states nor says fascism should not be critiqued.)

I largely agree. Yes, it’s not my intention to compare Orwell’s anti-imperialism/anti-war stance during 38-39 directly with Jenkins‘s article (but rather, replying to Bob, to mention an interesting example of someone opposing war with Hitler on the basis of our wicked ways, in the colonies, etc.).

Orwell’s change of mind was quite drastic, and (characteristically) quite emphatic. He was perhaps somewhat Hitchens-like (or rather, Hitchens is somewhat Orwellian) in the way he scolded people for thinking and saying things he himself had thought and said in the fairly recent past. Not that that’s not understandable – things can look very different as events unfold. I know this from experience…

I’m not ashamed to admit that I’m glad I don’t feel the need to stand up for all of the positions I, at some point earlier, once espoused (or, to a lesser extent, would have in some way not been ashamed to be associated with).

I hope I’m the only one. (My own Edge answer would probably have to do with the existence of a meaningful ‘human nature’. A surprising number of changes flow from that shift, as it turns out.)

Thanks, JK, for the follow up. It is fun to discuss him, isn’t it? The sign of quality writing…